Feminists Think Sexist Men Are Sexier than "Woke" Men

Why do women find sexist men appealing?

Women like bad boys. At least, that’s the story. And there’s lots of writing and anecdotal experience to back that up. Men frequently complain about being “friendzoned,” the idea being that men who are respectful toward their female interests get placed into the role of friend, rather than potential boyfriend. The “pickup artist” community has embraced this concept, teaching men how to behave in assertive, dominant ways that, allegedly, are more successful with women. Many of these concepts and dynamics themselves have been called sexist and misogynistic, reflecting underlying beliefs that women “owe” men sex. The “incel” community, a group of online males who complain bitterly, violently, and angrily about being “involuntary celibates” attack women for choosing “Alpha males” rather than softer, kinder men. . . like themselves.

Women who admit to liking bad boys—being attracted to men who are assertive or dominant—are sometimes criticized as having “internalized” misogynistic attitudes, or simply as naïve and foolish, failing to recognize or admit that sexism is damaging. During the 2016 presidential campaign, female fans of then-candidate Trumpproudly invited their candidate to grab them, following release of tapes of Trump discussing grabbing women without consent. These women were proclaimed traitors to other women, or decried as simply deluded. Others have suggested that women may choose bad boy types in order to acquire protection from other, more aggressive and hostile men, a theory referred to as the “protection racket.” Some simply suggest that sexism is insidious, and that these dynamics infiltrate our choices without us noticing.

Source: Pixabay

These are complex, highly politicized dynamics that foster conflicts and finger pointing between the genders. Unfortunately, research suggests that women do in fact find sexist men attractive. Gul and Kupfer recently published research where they conducted multiple experiments, testing women’s attraction to different types of men, and teasing out women’s motivations.

Past research has suggested that evolutionary biology explains these dynamics, pointing to findings that women reportedly prefer men with more masculine features and more indicators of “fitness.” However, many of those sensational findings are in question, with failed replications leading to doubt that these effects can be reliably predicted or measured.

Gul and Kupfer take a related tack, but head in a slightly different direction. They suggest that female interest in sexist men, specifically men who display “benevolent sexism” may be seen by women as being more interested in investing resources in a woman.

Benevolent sexism is a concept describing a form of sexism which is overtly less hostile and misogynistic, and are beliefs that I was taught, as a man from the US South. Benevolent sexism includes beliefs that:

Women should be “put on a pedestal”

Women should be cherished and protected by men

Men should be willing to sacrifice to provide for women

Women are more virtuous than men

Women are more refined and pure, compared to men.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Despite aspects of benevolent sexism appearing chivalrous and romantic, previous research has found that women who endorse these beliefs often demonstrate approval of restrictions on women’s freedoms, independence and autonomy, and may impact women’s support for gender egalitarianism.

Gul and Kupfer used several different related experiments in order to test why women find men with these types of beliefs to be more sexy and appealing. They found that women who saw these types of men as more attractive also saw the men as being more willing to protect and care for them, and to commit to a relationship. Interestingly though, these women weren’t love-struck fools, but had their eyes open about these men. Despite being attracted to them, and seeing them as good mates and partners, the women saw these males as being undermining and patronizing men who were more likely to place restrictions on the women.

Gul and Kupfer conducted several separate experiments, showing that their results did replicate in different samples and using different methods (an important strategy in today’s replication crisis), and that the effect was apparent both potential mates, AND in work colleagues. Even in men who were not being scoped out as potential intimate partners, women were more likely to see sexist men as more attractive. Women who were both more and less feminist displayed similar levels of attraction to sexist men, so this effect isn’t the result of women not being “woke” enough.

One of the experiments tested whether women’s ratings of sexist men varied depending on cues about there being more hostile men around from whom the woman might need protection. But here again, women’s attraction towards sexist men wasn’t influenced by her potential need for safety from more hostile men.

Gul and Kupfer’s research offers a new way to approach these complex dynamics of attraction, integrating the role of evolutionary influences, with culturally-influenced social role expectations. It also challenges some of the misleading beliefs that blame both women and men for the persistence of sexism in our society. It’s important to note that sexism and misogyny are not identical concepts. Kate Manne suggests that misogyny is more about control of women than about hatred, and argues that sexism is more of an ideology that supports the reasons why we treat women differently.

“Dating male feminists turned out to be one of the least empowering decisions I’ve ever made.” —Kate Iselin

Women who find sexist men attractive are not being traitors to other women, nor are they naïve women who don’t understand their choices. Instead, they are women who are making rational decisions, accepting tradeoffs. They are women who recognize that it may be more beneficial to have a partner who is committed to them and willing to sacrifice for them and their family, than it is to have a “woke” feminist man who wants them to be independent.

I look forward to future research which might explore men’s own perceptions of their attitudes towards women. Do men who hold benevolent sexist beliefs recognize that they may increase their attractiveness, while also potentially being seen as patronizing? But for now, perhaps this research can help us to stop attacking sexist men as being misogynistic tools of the patriarchy, and recognize that these social dynamics exist due to the choices of both men and women, for reasons other than power, hatred, or control.

This is an interesting theory, though I felt that the evolutionary influence analysis could have been better developed. I would be interested to see it tested across cultures. As a woman , I have acknowledged my preference for more traditionally masculine men, which I had previously attributed to culture (I'm from the Midwest, which shares some of the same notions of chivalry as the American south, but with a healthy dash of stoicism to boot). It is difficult for me to take seriously men who cry or who go on about their own emotions or woes. As I've grown older, my understanding of this preference has evolved, and now does to some extent support the theory: as a woman, I spend a lot of my time caring for others, both friends and family. I look for a partner who is at the very least capable of caring for himself and even shouldering a bit of my own burden (emotional or financial, it makes no difference). Ever navel-gazing "woke" men become yet another potential burden and begin to see them as such rather than as a partner. I'm willing to trade some of the things that I would ordinarily do to maintain and heighten my own lifestyle, such as cooking, decorating, entertaining etc, if he appears capable of lightening my load in other ways.

That wokeness and weakness are signs of beta male desperation, a pandering that strong masculine men don't need. Woke is submitting to collegiate-level propaganda, a sign of a follower, not a leader. And nature and human nature including your hormones don't care about PC.

I don't believe that benevolently sexist men think women are more virtuous, except on the issue of violence. And they clearly are in that respect.

This is a hard question, but the CDC reported in its 2011 survey that, during the previous 12 months, 5,452,000 men and 4,774,000 women had been subjected to aggressive physical violence by their intimate partner.

However, 2,374,000 men and 2,752,000 women had been subject to severe violence. A knife, a gun, burned, beaten, etc.

A harvard study suggests that most violence is reciprocal (that is, both partners engage in aggressive unprovoked violence against the other at different times), and of the violence that isn't, 70% is committed by women.

I call bull on your numbers. For one thing, those numbers are misleadingly "precise". In fact, all seven digits are off. What you're doing is called "lying with statistics". Or, more likely, you're not smart enough to understand what you read. The violence numbers are actually quite lopsided. This quote is more accurate from a newspapaer article:

It's a sobering fact. At least one third of all female homicide victims in the U.S. are killed by male intimate partners -- husbands and ex-husbands, boyfriends and estranged lovers. While both men and women experience domestic violence, the graphics below should put to rest the myth that abuse occurs equally to both sexes.

The statistic you mention doesn't invalidate what the previous person said. Men and women engage in severe violence against a partner at roughly the same rate. However, a woman is more likely to die from it.

The statistic you mention doesn't invalidate what the previous person said. Men and women engage in severe violence against a partner at roughly the same rate. However, a woman is more likely to die from it.

That's hard to say. It would depend on your definition of "severe". If you use the CDC's definition, and believe in their survey methodology (they probably do know a thing or two about numbers), it's probably around 54:46 as far as the ratio goes.

It's fairly probable that men commit a slight majority of severe DV, at least the way the CDC defines severe DV.

I call bull on your numbers. For one thing, those numbers are misleadingly "precise". In fact, all seven digits are off. What you're doing is called "lying with statistics". Or, more likely, you're not smart enough to understand what you read. The violence numbers are actually quite lopsided.

They really aren't. The CDC numbers are very clear on this. If you're upset at the numbers, talk to the CDC. I'm sure they're not very good at gathering statistics.

Again, please check out the CDC 2011 report. It's very clear.

Anonymous wrote:

This quote is more accurate from a newspapaer article:

It's a sobering fact. At least one third of all female homicide victims in the U.S. are killed by male intimate partners -- husbands and ex-husbands, boyfriends and estranged lovers. While both men and women experience domestic violence, the graphics below should put to rest the myth that abuse occurs equally to both sexes.

This is what's called lying with statistics. You're saying 1/3 of women who are murdered are killed by intimate partners. This is probably true, but it has everything to do with women are less likely to be murdered in general by a wide margin. About 80% of all murder victims are men.

So for equal numbers of men to be killed by their wives/intimate partners as women were killed by their husbands, and assuming women who are murdered are murdered by intimate partners 1/3 of the time, men would only have to be murdered by their partners 1/12 of time.

Assume 100 women are murdered for every 400 men who are murdered. This approximately equals the current trend. Men are disproportionately murdered for their gender.

If 1/3 of women who are murdered are murdered by an intimate partner, that's 33 women, or 34 if you round up. If 1/12 of men who are murdered are murdered by an intimate partner, that's also 33 men or 34 if you round up.

In point of fact though, this is probably not equal. The only study we've ever done to take into account intimate partner homicide in this fashion found the ratio to be about 75:100. This is, about 75 women killed their husbands for every 100 men who killed their wives. However, it only took into account married couples not those who cohabitate, so that could skew differently depending on your exact data set. It also found that in the white community it was 30:100, while in the black community it was 120:100.

It's a sobering fact. At least one third of all female homicide victims in the U.S. are killed by male intimate partners -- husbands and ex-husbands, boyfriends and estranged lovers.

Unfortunately this quote does not address the question whether men or women are more violent. We can say the two thirds of female homicides are committed by strangers. But it leaves unanswered:
- What are the total numbers?
- What are the totals for male homicides?
- How many homicides were instigated by women but carried out by men? (and vice versa)
- What about social violence (ruining reputations, losing jobs, turning people against others)?

No, simply being alone is not considered "incel." "Incel" is a whole philosophy about having entitlement to a partner. So when people (rightly) criticize incels, they are not talking about people who just haven't found a partner yet.

I'm not in the incel movement, but I have been hurt before and had feelings of hurt. I know that just by expressing that, I get lumped in to a mass to berate. And think of how often people don't say "movement."

Suffer in silence so you don't get called an "incel" kind of makes the suffering worse than it was in the first place.

Most of them are ugly or even really ugly. Some have congenital diseases. Quite a few are Asberger's. And things like anxiety disorders, especially social phobia, are epidemic.

It's weird that only the Right has sympathy for these poor shmucks. The Left seems to have nothing but fire-breathing contempt for these men, who are disadvantaged, oppressed, etc. if anyone is. I see why Left women hate them. After all, all Left are poisoned by feminism. But why do Left men hate them? These guys have never had a dry spell? Most of us guys are incel part of the time or even a good part of the time.

Lots of people have issues. They compensate by beating their chests and insulting others. It's their hurt and pain they are attempting to deal with, and it's their problem, not yours. So, leave it with them to sort out, don't internalize their issues.

No one? Sorry but I think the lines have become quite blurred. I see insults thrown at men by women on reddit which amount to "I get laid and you don't" quite a bit. True the fringe of these incels is criminal, but I also notice men who aren't glowing red with anger being lumped in with incels as some sort of afterthought.

ALL feminists and ALL SJW's always attack anyone who disagrees with their nonsense by saying, "Obviously you can't get laid."

Been around the block a few times. Women do NOT like men who don't get any. Huge turnoff. Women like men who get women. Men don't really care that much, but if you don't get any, some men will ridicule you.

Sure, it's true that it's sometimes easier to get women when they see you with other women. It's the wingwoman effect. In fact, in NYC you could for a while even hire "wingwomen" to help you meet other women.

The reason is obvious. If a woman sees you with other women, she figures they must know something about you, and therefore you're probably a better bet than the guy standing around looking creepy.

And if you don't like that, good luck convincing all the women in the world to prefer the guy who looks creepy. You might as well try urinating into the wind. Find something else to bellyache about, like why can't we all live 200 years.

The DEFAULT insults towards men are an attack on their sexuality: virgin, small penis, can't satisfy a woman, no woman would want you, you don't get laid, you never will get laid, you're gay, etc. These are followed by attacks on their bodies (e.g.: fat, neckbeard) and their productivity (e.g.: living in parents basement, playing video games).

This is because for all sorts of historic, cultural, and evolutionary reasons, men are judged by what they produce rather than who they are. It's the ethic of male disposability: the role of the male is to produce, provide, and defend. That's what this article is ultimately pointing at. Men are judged worth by their ability to produce. Which is why telling a man he can't produce, especially when it comes to providing for women, is the default attack. It's an existential attack on his manhood.

The disgusting thing is that third-wave feminist types reinforce this ethic. Despite claiming to be more enlightened, they are motivated by the same evolutionary drives AND believe a philosophy that explicitly seeks the exclusive benefit of women at the expense of men. But then they'll turn around and claim that it's the "Patriarchy" that hurts men, even though they're right there reinforcing those values, using those same insults.

It's sickening and disgusting that 3rd wavers especially stoop this low. ALL 3rd wave feminists routinely scream, "Obviously you can't get laid" at anyone who questions their nonsense. That and "misogynist!" What these dumb women don't get is that the most misogynistic men get the most women. Every man knows this, and every woman should, but women are too busy lying to themselves to figure it out.

Those phrases are a tipoffs that I need to skim over the rest of the claptrap in the comment. Obviously a guy with a big chip on his shoulder whining and bellyaching all over the place. Pathetic and tiresome.

The men in my life who have gotten laid the most have been the most cynical about women. No human on Earth understands women better than the player.

The men in my life, including myself, have had the most women friends and best sex from being great friends with women and treating them as such, rather than just sex objects.

And one quick piece of contrarian advice I have for people afraid of being "friendzoned" is to do the exact opposite. Try to get into the friendzone with as many women as possible, enjoy their company, rely on them as TRUE friends, as if they were men who are on YOUR SIDE, and you will be surprised. A few of them will be eager to unfriendzone you!

wrote:

All men complain about women and vice versa. It's normal.

Actually, I got to tell you, I don't find myself complaining much about women. In fact, I've spent so much time having fun with women that I never even had the time to complain about them. The key -- value them as true friends, regardless. But have your own personality and humor, and don't feel too much like you need to please them. Again, just treat them as friends, with the normal give-and-take you would with another guy.

Incels don't all hate women either. My analysis found that 22% of them didn't hate women at all. All of these guys have been treated like complete garbage by females their whole lives. It's amazing that there's even one that doesn't hate women considering what they've been through.

There are wild debates about misogyny on incel boards all the time with a minority saying it's a bad idea and the rest championing it. The movement doesn't have any coherent philosophy.

Women won't give these guys the time of day, pretty much. A lot of them say they are ugly, and that makes sense to me. Or if women are pleasant then they have no sexual or romantic interest in the guy. They get friendzoned and ghosted all the time by women. Nice guy syndrome is epidemic among incels. Which shows that the stereotype of them all being angry psychos is bullshit.

You can go and read the Introductions sections on those sites. Those are some of the saddest stories I've ever heard. I can see why a lot of them hate women. How can you blame them. You hit a man enough times, he might just start hitting back.

He is involuntarily celibate though. And that’s where the word comes from. So it’s not hard to see why the confusion.

There's no such thing as an "involuntary celibate". At best, it's a highly inaccurate term meant to exaggerate the "severity" of what is merely a difficulty in getting lots of free sex from young attractive women without their working on themselves to have anything to offer such women. Don't believe it? Ask any incel if he's excited about hooking up with an older lonely woman who'd love to have sex with him, never mind all the escorts in town who wouldn't hesitate to have sex with him for what is merely pocket change if the incel has a half-decent job.

Maybe it's not actually about sex? You're fixated on the idea that it's just these guys wanting sex with young, attractive women but they're lameos for not having sex with older women or escorts. Maybe it's not actually about sex? Maybe it's about wanting a relationship and not knowing how to go about getting one in their current life conditions?